Dependency Law Finder

Florida's dependency statutes, court rules and DCF operating procedures, with the appellate opinions that apply them

data.robertlathamesq.org · All tools

Before you use this site

This site aggregates legal authorities from a variety of public sources. It is AI and human reviewed. Text processing errors can occur. Always check the information here against the official linked source.

This site is publicly available. Use for general research only. Do not submit confidential or identifiable case information.

I don't agree: show the official sources

E.T. v. State957 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2007) · SC06-1396

Court
Florida Supreme Court
Decided
2007-04-26
Case
TPR
Appellant
Other

Dismissed Supreme Court discharged review as moot because the children were adopted, and referred ineffective-assistance claims in termination cases to rules committees.

Issue
Right to counsel & ineffective assistance

Summary, issues, facts, outcome, and appellant were extracted automatically from the opinion. Check the opinion itself before relying on them.

On CourtListener
957 So.2d 559 (2007)

E.T., Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, et al., Respondents.

No. SC06-1396.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 26, 2007.

Valentin Rodriguez, Jr. of Valentin Rodriguez, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for Petitioner.

Julie H. Littky-Rubin of Lytal, Reiter, Clark, Fountain and Williams, LLP and Amy J. Genet of Foster Children's Project of Legal Aid, West Palm Beach, FL, on behalf of Foster Children's Project; John J. Copelan, Jr., General Counsel, Gregory D. Venz, Assistant General Counsel and Jeffrey Dana Gillen, Senior Attorney, West Palm Beach, FL, on behalf of Florida Department of Children and Family Services; and Dennis W. Moore, General Counsel and Thomas Wade Young, Appellate Counsel, Orlando, FL, on behalf of Statewide Guardian ad Litem Program, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in E.T. v. State, 930 So.2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The district court ruled upon the following question, which the court certified to be of great public importance:

(1) DOES FLORIDA RECOGNIZE A CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ARISING FROM A LAWYER'S REPRESENTATION OF A PARENT(S) IN A PROCEEDING FOR THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS?
(2) IF SO, WHAT PROCEDURE MUST BE FOLLOWED TO PURSUE A CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?

Id. at 729. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Upon further consideration, we have now determined that because the children have been adopted the case is moot. Because the case is moot, we exercise our discretion and discharge jurisdiction. The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel claims in termination of parental rights cases will be referred to the Juvenile Court Rules Committee and the Appellate Court Rules Committee for consideration *560 of a rule to address such claims. Accordingly, this review proceeding is hereby dismissed.

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.

Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.